Since you now use a Zeiss manual focus lens, you should know if you like it or not. The 21mm lens is supurb, undoubtedly one of the top few along with the TE-E 17mm L. if you like the manual focus and can afford it, go for it.

Not everyone has good enough vision to do manual focus, and I fall in the camp. I have to use live view and 5 or 10X magnification, I am too impatient to do that.

hippo, I've been using it for a year now - it was the first ZE I bought and 3 additional followed... 35/1.4, 50/2 100/2. I find focusing the 21 is the easiest, (I use a focusing screen and can capture action with all of my Zeiss without much trouble, not worse than the current 5D2 AF system can...) The lens has superb IQ, unmistakably recognizable... I just have to think a lot more about framing than with the other ones.Please look at the recent 25/2 - probably better IQ... I haven't seen it yet in actionHere is a shot from the Tongariro NP NZ North Island, f 5.6, 5D2, ISO 100, unprocessed

I had one, loved the image quality, but didn't enjoy the manual focusing experience on my 5D Mark II, so I ended up selling the lens.

About a month later, I found a 1Ds III for a good price, and picked up another Zeiss 21mm f2.8. The better viewfinder of the 1Ds III is just enough of an improvement over the 5D II to make using MF lenses easier. I highly recommend both!

I have a camera

I bought one for my 500D a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to play around with it yet, but from what little I have done, I am very satisfied.

Even if we don't look at the image quality, this lens is fantastic. Solidly built. Everything is aluminum - even the lens hood, and the focus ring has a nice feel - no slack at all. It feels good to just sit and play with it even if the camera is off.

This lens is my first one in this "class", my other ones so far have been EF-S. I have however previously tried out both the 24 L prime and the 24-70 L zoom. Neither of these seemed to have the same quality feel to them as the Zeiss. Again, I am not talking about image quality - just the feeling you get from touching it

The Zeiss is expensive, but for me it is definitely worth the money. My cheap camera can actually take really nice pictures now, which gives me more time to find out what the next step should be in terms of a body.

« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 09:03:58 AM by I have a camera »

Logged

branden

I've rented the Zeiss 21, and the images it snapped were wonderful. Definitely an amazing landscape lens.

I would buy one, but it turns out, I'd rather have the $1800 in my pocket than an amazing 21mm landscape lens. I have the 24L, which is 2 full stops faster, in addition to autofocus, and I need both features for events. Some day I'll get back to my roots though, and get a good wide landscape lens.

I was going through a similar decision making process about 18 months ago. Three lenses were on my radar, as firs thte 7D and then the 5D MkII when I got it were showing up the deficiencies of my 24-105 at 24mm. Initially, there wasn't really anything better enough to pay out silly money for, as the original EF 24mm f/1.4 had it's own problems, but then over a relatively short period, the EF 24 f/1.4 MkII, Zeiss 21 and T/SE 24 all appeared and all came out well in reviews. At the time, I was looking for a landscape lens (so manual focus) in that sort of range and was leaning towards the Zeiss, based on reviews and real life sample images (although very few exist for the tilt shift). However, recently, I arranged a northern lights trip, so a fast lens was more important than when I was originally deciding and that pretty much decided it. The reviews put the Zeiss and the f/1.4 even in terms of image quality, but one review stated that the Zeiss had that indefinable something, a certain look the Canon lens couldn't match. I would therefore say, if you might need a fast aperture, then don't rule out the Canon, but if you are only ever going to be using narrower apertures, then I would lean towards the Zeiss. 3mm can be important at wide angle and you can always crop or move if the 24mm field of view is important compositionally, so you have a bit more flexibility, then there is the difference in contrast. Ultimately, the test is going to be a trial though, as I'm sure some would prefer the look of the Zeiss and others the look of the 24 f/1.4. Also for seascapes, the ability to use a wider aperture to capture more wave definition and movement and still have sufficient DoF might make the tilt and shift a better proposition.

I've rented the Distagon 2.8/21 and it is a splendid optical freak of nature. Really the only negative is the price; everything else about it is outstanding (particularly color and microcontrast). Unless someone needs tilt/shift capability, there is no better lens in the 20-24mm focal length range.

For a manual lens, it is very easy and precise to focus with. Compared to my Distagon 2/35 (my favorite lens) I'd say it performs a tad better in most respects. The 2/35 is still better in terms of 3D rendering.